Hamilton v. American Vote Registering Machine Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the plaintiff, Arthur S. Hamilton, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Monroe Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Monroe on the 13th day of September, 1891, as directs the plaintiff to furnish a bill of particulars setting forth “ the circumstances, letters, conversations or other methods of information by which it is claimed that the defendant The United States Voting Machine Company had knowledge of any…
Read the full summary
Appeal by the plaintiff, Arthur S. Hamilton, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Monroe Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Monroe on the 13th day of September, 1891, as directs the plaintiff to furnish a bill of particulars setting forth “ the circumstances, letters, conversations or other methods of information by which it is claimed that the defendant The United States Voting Machine Company had knowledge of any agreement made by the defendant The American Vote Registering Machine Company with the plaintiff, as alleged in paragraph…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam :
It is the province of the complaint to inform the defendant of the specific acts constituting the alleged wrong, and to enable the defendant to know what the plaintiff’s charge against him is. And, although a complaint relates to acts of a defendant which must be presumed to have been within his knowledge, yet if the specific acts constituting the wrong complained of are not stated by the pleader, then further particulars are necessary in order that the defendant may be definitely advised of the charge made against him.
Where the defendant would otherwise be left in ignorance of…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Smith v. AndersonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1908